Republican Congressman Predicts Bush Impeachment

Debra_Law wrote:

All criminal offenses in violation of federal law are committed against the United States.

Maybe so, but that has little to do with the meaning of the terms "high crime" and "high misdemeanor" in English common law.

The difference between "high treason" and "petty treason" might help illustrate what "high" meant when it came to crimes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petty_treason

Debra_Law wrote:

Accordingly, you should re-examine your faulty "government as the victim of crime" theory as you have applied it and study the matter of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the proper context of an officer's violation of the public trust.

Violation of the public's trust would be a high misdemeanor, if anything. But it is debatable if the Framers wanted a violation which did not specifically injure the government to be impeachable, because they removed the term "maladministration" out of fears that it would be too broad.

Debra_Law wrote:

When President Johnson faced impeachment, the following arguments were made:

Quote:

The theory of the proponents of impeachment was succinctly put by Representative Butler, one of the managers of the impeachment in the Senate trial. ''An impeachable high crime or misdemeanor is one in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of government or highly prejudicial to the public interest, and this may consist of a violation of the Constitution, of law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an act committed or omitted, or, without violating a positive law, by the abuse of discretionary powers from improper motives or for an improper purpose.''

Former Justice Benjamin Curtis controverted this argument, saying: ''My first position is, that when the Constitution speaks of 'treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors,' it refers to, and includes only, high criminal offences against the United States, made so by some law of the United States existing when the acts complained of were done, and I say that this is plainly to be inferred from each and every provision of the Constitution on the subject of impeachment.''

The President's acquittal by a single vote was no doubt not the result of a choice between the two theories, but the result may be said to have placed a gloss on the impeachment language approximating the theory of the defense.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/18.html

Curtis did not say all criminal offenses against the United States. He said high criminal offenses against the United States.

He was essentially arguing that a president could be impeached for high crimes, but couldn't be impeached for high misdemeanors.

The high misdemeanors thing must have given the defense some sleepless nights, given the fact that the Framers had expressly talked about "removing qualified cabinet secretaries" as an impeachable high misdemeanor.


I think the fact that the Framers included "misdemeanors" in the phrase of the Constitution, and specifically talked of impeaching presidents for high misdemeanors in their debates, would argue against the view of the Johnson defense.

However, if a president cannot be impeached for a high misdemeanor, it only strengthens the case for Bush not having done anything impeachable.

The president's violation of any crime designated as a felony is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment.

The president's violation of a federal criminal law that was enacted to safeguard the people's rights against unreasonable searches and seizures is both a felony and a violation of the public trust. President Bush's admitted violation of FISA is an impeachable offense.

parados wrote:

There are some major problems with your argument oralloy. Under your definition the President could call out the military and prevent any voting by people. The govt would certainly not be hurt since it would remain in place. So it wouldn't fall under you definition of High crimes.

Since democracy is a vital part of the government, preventing elections would definitely be a crime against our government.

parados wrote:

The President could jail all those US citizens that opposed him, throw them in jail cells in Cuba and it would not be a high crime under your scenario.

If they were jailed merely for opposing him, that also would count as a crime against our system of government.

parados wrote:

The President could order that 50% of the country be taken out and shot and it wouldn't be a high crime under your scenario.

Whether it was a high crime would depend on what the motive for the shooting was.

I'd think that killing half the country would require a type of motive that would end up making it a high crime, but it is possible that someone could come up with a hypothetical motive for shooting that many people where it wouldn't end up as a high crime.

Since the law is an essential part of our democracy, violations of the law by a President would also be a crime against the goverment. You can't decide some laws are and others aren't.

oralloy wrote:

If they were jailed merely for opposing him, that also would count as a crime against our system of government.

How so under your definition?

Isn't any violation of the law a crime against our system of goverment?

After all, the president takes an oath to uphold the law. Wouldn't his failure to do so be a violation against the government?

For gods sake oralloy, your arguments make no sense at all.

I don't think there can be any question that willful violations of the constitution constitute a high crime. There might be some grey area there as to intent and legal interpretation but a willful violation is a high crime.

Debra_Law wrote:

The president's violation of any crime designated as a felony is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment.

That seems an unusually broad interpretation of "high misdemeanor".

If such broad definitions are the correct interpretation, then the Democrats should have used them when their own politicians were on trial.

Using such a broad interpretation of high misdemeanor, both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton should have been removed from office.

I don't consider it fair play for the Democrats to shift the definition of what is impeachable depending on whether it is a Republican or Democrat who is under scrutiny.

The president's violation of a federal criminal law that was enacted to safeguard the people's rights against unreasonable searches and seizures is both a felony and a violation of the public trust. President Bush's admitted violation of FISA is an impeachable offense.

It has not been established that these searches are unreasonable as far as the Fourth Amendment goes. The searches just violate FISA.

Also, all Bush is doing is trying to stop Osama from attacking again. I am not sure that "breaking the law in an attempt to try to stop Osama" amounts to violating the public's trust.

I'm not the one who did the deciding. Blame those English judges who came up with the terms a few centuries ago.

parados wrote:

Since the law is an essential part of our democracy, violations of the law by a President would also be a crime against the goverment. You can't decide some laws are and others aren't.

That is incorrect. Some crimes are against individual persons. Some crimes are against corporations. Some crimes are against property.

I'm not the one who did the deciding. Blame those English judges who came up with the terms a few centuries ago.

John Feerick examined more than 100 impeachments of English judges and found that 75% were for "high crimes and misdemeanors" that included "grave misuse of one's official position."

Blackstone argued that "mal-administration" by public officials was impeachable. His successor counted among impeachable offenses when "judges mislead their sovereign by unconstitutional opinions." English judges were impeached for extrajudicial opinions and misinterpreting the law. Professor Berger's examples include impeachment for "abuse of official power" and "encroachment on or contempt of Parliament's prerogatives."

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

If they were jailed merely for opposing him, that also would count as a crime against our system of government.

How so under your definition?

Our system of government depends on people being able to freely express political ideas, including ideas that are in opposition to the current government.

parados wrote:

Isn't any violation of the law a crime against our system of goverment?

No.

Say I don't like my neighbor and I burn down their house (just a hypothetical -- I happen to like my neighbor).

That is a crime against my neighbor, not against our system of government.


On the other hand, suppose I tamper with election results. That is a crime against our system of government, not a crime against my neighbor.

parados wrote:

After all, the president takes an oath to uphold the law. Wouldn't his failure to do so be a violation against the government?

Not in the context of a high crime.

parados wrote:

For gods sake oralloy, your arguments make no sense at all.

Go look up the common-law meanings of "high crimes and misdemeanors". See what it means.

Debra, If Bush's unauthorized wiretaps is an impeachable offense, why has not anyone pressed charges?

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance, spoke about Bush's admission that he authorized warrantless wiretaps, in an interview for an article, “Bush’s Impeachable Offense” by Michelle Goldberg, published December 22, 2005 on Salon.com. "The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment." Turley testified against Clinton in that impeachment hearing and added "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism. I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."

Debra, Good article that has some common sense and legal standard for the righties to consider. How many of those that pushed to impeach Clinton will stand up against their boss? I don't give it much hope for too many.